My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE36148
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE36148
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:45:34 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:56:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
4/23/2007
Doc Name
Statement of Reasons in Support of Petition For Review of Basin Resources
From
Davis Graham & Stubbs Inc
To
DRMS
Violation No.
CV2007001
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4. For the Reasons Set Forth Above, the Division May Not Increase the Amount <br />of the Bond for Permit No. C-1981-013. <br />As with the NOV, the Division's Proposed Bond Adjustment is explicitly premised upon <br />the judicial awazd secured by the Tatums in lieu of an administrative proceeding. See Proposed <br />Bond Adjustment at 1 ("[A]dditional bond must be posted for the subsidence damage <br />compensation amount specified in the Las Animas County District Court Case Number <br />Ol CV26"). The Division asserts authority for the Proposed Bond Adjustment "[b]ased upon the <br />general requirements of C.R.S. 34-33-113." Id. The Division's reliance on Section 113 is <br />misplaced. <br />Section 113 of the Act directs that "[t]he amount of the bond required for each bonded <br />azea shall depend upon the reclamation requirements of the approved permit" and "shall be <br />sufficient to assure the completion of the reclamation plan" Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-33-113(1). <br />The statutory authority for the Division to require operators to post a bond is unambiguous: to <br />ensure compliance with reclamation obligations. Yet, the Proposed Bond Adjustment makes no <br />reference to reclamation. It is aimed solely at fulfilling a judgment of the district court in a <br />damages action by a private citizen against Basin. Section 113 does not "generally require" the <br />Division to use bonding requirements to secure private damages actions in district court. <br />The Division's own bonding regulations show that it is constrained to reclamation <br />considerations in setting bond amounts. When bonds aze forfeited by a mine operator, the <br />Division may only use the proceeds "for reclamation of the azea covered by the bond" and <br />"amounts received by [the Division] in excess of such costs and expenses shall be refunded to <br />the permittee or to the surety." 2 Colo. Code Reg. 407-2, § 3.04.2(4). The Division could not <br />under the Rules permissibly apply a bond toward fulfillment of a landowner's judgment against a <br />permittee - there is no indication that the Division can collect money from Basin and hand it <br />-7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.